The defendant is charged [in count __]
with kidnapping in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in
pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of
kidnapping in the second degree when (he/she) abducts another person.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant abducted <insert name of person>. "Abduct" means to restrain a
person with the intent to prevent (his/her) liberation by <insert as
appropriate:>

secreting or holding
(him/her) in a place where (he/she) is not likely to be found. There need be
no evidence of the use or threatened use of force. The defendant need only
have effectively hidden <insert name of person> or left (him/her) in
a place where (he/she) was not likely to be found.

using or threatening to use
physical force or intimidation. The defendant does not need to actually use
force. (He/She) need only threaten to use force in such a manner that <insert
name of other person> reasonably believed that force would be used if
(he/she) tried to escape.

"Restrain" means to restrict a
person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such a manner as to interfere
substantially with (his/her) liberty by moving (him/her) from one place to
another, or by confining (him/her) either in the place where the restriction
commences or in a place to which (he/she) has been moved, without consent. There
is no requirement that the movement be of any specific distance or that the
confinement last any specific period of time. There need not be any movement at
all -- the person could be confined by preventing (him/her) from leaving a place
where (he/she) was.

Any apparent consent on the part of <insert
name of other person> to the movement or confinement must have been actual
and not simply acquiescence brought about by force, fear, shock, or deception. <Insert
as appropriate:>

<If consent is at issue:>
The act of consent must have been truly voluntary. Consent may be express or
you may find that it is implied from the circumstances that you find
existed. Whether there was consent is a question of fact for you to
determine. The defendant has no burden to prove consent. The state must
prove the lack of consent.

<If person abducted is
less than sixteen or an incompetent person:> Without consent in this
case means by any means whatever1,
including acquiescence of the person, if (he/she) is (a child less than
sixteen years old / an incompetent person) and (the parent or guardian /
person or institution having lawful control or custody of (him/her)) has not
acquiesced in the movement or confinement.

In abducting <insert name of person>,
the defendant must have specifically intended to prevent (his/her) liberation. A
person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious
objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

[<Include the following when a
related offense is charged or when the evidence supports the commission of an
uncharged offense:>2

<Use one of the following,
depending on whether the other offense is charged or not:>3

In this case, the defendant
is also charged with <identify crime> in count __. <Refer back to
the instruction on that count.>

The state has offered
evidence that the defendant committed another offense, although the
defendant has not been charged with that offense, specifically <identify
crime>. <List the elements of the crime.>

As you can see there is no element of
restraint for this offense. Nevertheless some interference with the
complainant's liberty may be necessary or incidental to that offense.

To establish the intent required for
abduction, the state must prove that the defendant intended to prevent the
complainant's liberation for a longer time or to a greater degree than that
which is necessary to commit another offense, here <identify other crime>.
In this regard, the defendant's intent to prevent the complainant's liberation
may be manifested by confinement or movement that is more than merely incidental
to the other offense. In other words, if the confinement or movement is so much
a part of the other offense that it could not have been committed without such
acts, then the requisite intent to prevent the complainant's liberation has not
been established. There is, however, no minimal period of confinement or degree
of movement necessary to establish kidnapping.

Whether the movement or confinement of
the complainant is merely incidental to another offense is a question of fact
for you to determine. In determining whether the defendant intended to prevent
the complainant's liberation beyond the degree necessary to commit the other
offense, you may consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case,
including, but not limited to, the following factors:4

the nature and duration of
the complainant's movement or confinement by the defendant,

whether that movement or
confinement occurred during the commission of the separate offense,

whether the restraint was
inherent in the nature of the separate offense,

whether the restraint
prevented the complainant from summoning assistance,

whether the restraint
reduced the defendant's risk of detection, and

whether the restraint
created a significant danger or increased the complainant's risk of harm
independent of that posed by the separate offense.]

Consider all of the evidence when
deciding on what the defendant intended to do. <Insert
Evidence of Intent,
Instruction 2.3-2.>

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant abducted <insert the name of the
other person>.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
kidnapping in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On
the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant
not guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
The "any means whatever" language was intended "to protect young children and
incompetent persons from being kidnapped when the victim agrees to go with the
kidnapper because of promises of favors or gifts. A competent adult's actual
consent to the restraint would negate lack of consent if not induced by
deception, force, fear or shock; in other words, with no compulsion or
deception. . . . The 'any means whatever' language should not be given in an
instruction when . . . the victim is a competent adult." State v. Benjamin,
86 Conn. App. 344, 355 (2004).

2State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (2008), State v. Sanseverino, 287
Conn. 608 (2008), and State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008), made a
significant change to the law of kidnapping. The trial court should carefully
review those cases before using this instruction.

3
A defendant is entitled to an instruction that he or she cannot be convicted of
kidnapping if the restraint imposed on the victim was merely incidental to
another offense, regardless of whether the state elects to try the defendant for
the other offense. See State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. 550 n.35;
State v. Sanseverino, supra, 287 Conn. 621.

4State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. 548. These factors are the more
commonly occurring factual scenarios that might support a finding of intent to
restrain beyond that necessary to commit the underlying crime, but they are only
illustrative. Factors should only be included if relevant, and the trial judge
may include other factors that appear in the case. The instruction must be
tailored to the evidence presented by the state.